Even if one were to grant your version of Wilson’s various shortcomings (which I don’t), the key question is whether the various cops watching him be put on trial will share your view, and thus take the appropriate lesson.
I think it’s highly likely that they won’t share your view, and thus won’t take that lesson. The lesson they’ll take is that they can’t get to aggressive about confronting criminals, because if the criminals turn on them, then next thing you know the public and criminal justice system will too.
And the ones who will ultimately lose out will be the innocent people, trying to go about their business and stay out of the way of thugs and cops.
During Wilson’s Grand Jury testimony, Wilson was not asked why he would, or why he did, chase Brown after the confrontation at the police vehicle.
State of Missouri v. Darren Wilson
Wilson testimony - p.196 to p.281
p.218 - A (aka Darren Wilson) - *One thing you guys haven’t asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away. People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now.
I had already called for assistance. If someone arrives and sees him running, another officer, and goes around the back half of the apartment complexes and tries to stop him, what would stop him from doing what he just did to me to him or worse, knowing he has already done it to one cop. And that was, he still posed a threat, not only to me, to anybody else that confronted him.
Ms. Whirley: Any questions?
Along those lines, you feel like as a police officer it is your obligation to follow that suspect?
A - Yes, sir.
Ms. Alizadeh: All right. If that’s it then.
(End of the testimony…)*
Wilson believed that Brown was still a threat both to Wilson and to any other police officer that might come in contact with Brown. If Brown had peacefully surrendered, I assume that Wilson would have arrested him. I also assume that Wilson would have assisted another officer if they were to arrest Brown. I assume Wilson would have put Brown in handcuffs at the earliest opportunity. I assume Wilson would have tackled Brown if the opportunity had presented itself.
But maybe Wilson just wanted to jogging with Brown?
All of that assumes a considered and rational response to the situation. Suppose he chased after Brown hoping for an opportunity to shoot him legally? Apparently, turning about and moving in his direction is sufficient to that end.
That is speculation, of course. My speculation is more along the lines of: he knew he supposed to do something, and chasing was all he could think of in the moment. So he did.
I don’t think either of these men acted reasonably or rationally. However, only one of them is dead.
I would guess it’s something close to that. SOP for police is that when you’re dealing with a suspected lawbreaker and the guy runs away you chase him. It’s not like you sit around pondering the pros and cons in every case before deciding what to do.
On the whole it’s a good policy. You might catch the guy and even if you don’t you’ll have a better idea of where he went when backup arives. And more than that, if you didn’t routinely chase suspects, then more of them would run away, which would make police work a lot harder.
But it might be a mistake to attribute any sort of carefully thought out plan to Wilson.
I think it’s important to remember that forensic evidence and many of the eyewitnesses say that Brown advanced on Wilson. That was a very, very stupid thing to do.
You and I have differing perspectives on the role of government when it comes to balancing protection of the rights of an accused versus ensuring transparency in that protection. That’s fine, and perhaps in some measure reflective of our own backgrounds. Don’t be troubled. In other contexts I’m about as supportive of Constitutional protections of civil rights as an old hippie can get. Please know that I don’t specifically want to scapegoat Wilson, nor do I desire willingly to sacrifice the Constitution or the oaths of anyone. And I don’t think justice (whatever that is) lies in making anyone’s life into hell.
Still, while Wilson’s actions almost certainly didn’t rise to the level of criminality here, they surely were poorly chosen. (Some detail in my previous post.) Frankly, I would be in favor of enacting laws to better define the proper role, and the expected conduct, of police officers when confronted with situations that might result in use of deadly force, such that use of deadly force could be reduced. (Not eliminated; reduced.) I think that a trial, demonstrating as it would the lack of criminal action but also clearly demonstrating how not to handle such a street situation, would help us make the political case that legal changes are necessary.
Toward that end, while it would indeed be punishing, it would not be deliberate punishment of Wilson. No, he doesn’t deserve punishment for not-committing a crime. But then, Brown doesn’t deserve to be dead for robbing a merchant, punching a cop, or fleeing and eluding, none of which are capital offenses. So the fact that Wilson would be put through considerable indignity, stress, financial loss, etc. etc. on his way to acquittal is to me an acceptable result of his stupid actions, and it potentially might advance an important objective, that being a modification of the rules regarding use of force. And meanwhile, Brown, as a consequence of his own stupid actions, and apparently regardless of the fact that no one, least of all Wilson, intended to ‘punish’ him that day, still remains quite dead. Fair is fair.
In what way is it not deliberate punishment of Wilson? You want to subject him to “considerable indignity, stress, financial loss, etc. etc” as a result of his actions. How that differs from deliberate punishment for his actions is beyond me.
Not to mention we would be doing so in the full knowledge and belief that Wilson had broken no law, and would be acquitted. IOW you want to spend millions prosecuting an innocent man.
It may well be. Do you believe it is fair to blast a man’s life because he was attacked by a nasty thug ten minutes off a strong-arm robbery?
Is it unfair that Brown is dead because he broke the law, but fair to go after Wilson because he didn’t?
What is “fair” about punishing Wilson for not violating the law? You want to put Wilson through considerable indignity, stress, financial loss, etc. etc. on his way to acquittal. You find that to be an acceptable result??? You know he won’t be found guilty but the state must punish the non-law breaker???
To be clear, just as folks are free to consider someone guilty before there is a *legal *determination of guilt, on the other hand folks are free to consider that someone has committed no crime even if (s)he in fact did, simply on the basis that there exists no indictment.
A court finding, one way or the other, is merely a legal determination. That doesn’t mean X did or did not occur.
“Why not skip the show trial and just get a rope?”
That’s what happens on a routine basis to most people, including Mr. Brown (though luckily his case is extraordinary, it’s not so rare as a unicorn). While a relative few are killed or seriously injured before so much as being charged, even where that’s not a factor, very few see the way clear to demand and receive a (defective or not, “show” or not) trial in the face of X (far worse) punishment, innocent or no. The U.S. criminal justice system would grind to a halt if even so much as a tiny fraction of the folks who face charges weren’t routinely intimidated to include implicit or explicit threat – usually legal – into pleading guilty. Unfortunately, more often than not, one’s only chance to achieve justice is if (s)he’s possessed of a relatively fat wallet.
Hells bells, if you’re poor, you can wind up in jail for months on a mere trespassing charge before ever seeing your case processed, because you can’t afford to cough up $100-200 for bail. That means one can suffer far worse than the worst legal penalty before and without ever being tried or found guilty. Unfortunately, our seriously flawed legal system, like so many problems will continue to be ignored (that is, unless there’s anarchy of epic proportions). The uninformed and what I’ve seen here called the superignorant (those who don’t or can’t realize their ignorance) will continue to spout nonsense about it and the law. Very few will ever directly or indirectly have their eyes opened to reality. It’s a matter of chance, socio-economic situation and/or ethnic background.
That’s what grand juries were developed to prevent - malicious prosecution.
[QUOTE=Fallen]
“Why not skip the show trial and just get a rope?”
That’s what happens on a routine basis to most people, including Mr. Brown…
[/QUOTE]
No, that isn’t what happened to Brown. He was not lynched; he was shot after he attacked a police officer and tried to steal his gun. It was not punishment, it does not happen routinely, you are a clown.
That’s one of the reasons we have civil cases. Michael Brown’s family can, and likely will, attempt to sue the hell out of Officer Wilson and Ferguson. If they like, they can have a trial, and all of this can come out; that’s their decision.
But that’s not what you are advocating. What you are advocating is using the criminal justice system to scapegoat someone and make them pay for a series of possible mistakes. I find that unconscionable.
No, that isn’t what happened to Brown. He was not lynched; he was shot after he attacked a police officer and tried to steal his gun. It was not punishment, it does not happen routinely, you are a clown.
Please don’t take what I say out of context for your own purposes (as to routine of people being in effect or actually punished without a charge or trial), and there’s no need to be literal (just as the “rope” referencer was not being literal).
Also, people whose responses always include some kind of put down or name-calling cannot be expected to be taken seriously. That’s the stuff that shows damaged egos and fragile self-esteem, and I’ll give you the benefit of believing you’re better than that.
I happen to believe that both sides are looking at the numbers from the wrong perspective and it doesn’t matter what the pundits say when the same information is available to the non-Gruber-esque public.
There are 25,000 cities in the U.S.A… They are all protected by the various organizations of LEO’s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stats are supposed to show that in 2012, 123 African-Americans were killed by police bullets and 326 whites were shot dead by police.
The questions should be - Under what conditions did these 449 people die? And how many police officers died in the line of duty?
The Ferguson PD is mostly white. The NYPD is mostly minority (a minority majority). The protestors (former OWS protestors looking for something to shout about?) considered both PDs to be racist because police officers responded to complaints from the public and didn’t allow the suspect to simply walk away.
What did Garner and Brown have in common? There were complaints from the public, both had previously committed crimes (felonies?), and both were resisting arrest. It’s beginning to look like the choice is between not responding to the public’s complaints or only being able to ask suspects to put handcuffs on themselves and if they could please bring any evidence of their crime with them when they come to court, that would be especially nice.
